ADDRESS 


DJCMYKKED 


AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION 


THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


FIRST ASSOCIATE RIMMED SHOD OF Till WEST, 


November 6th, 1850, 


B Y 


JOHN T. PRESSLY, D. D. 


Published by Request of the Students. 


PITTSBURGH: 

PRINTED BY SHRYOCK <fc HACKE, CORNER OF WOOD AND THIRD STREETS. 

1850. 










ADDRESS 


DELIVERED 


AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION 

/ 


IN THE 

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


OF THE 


FIRST ASSOCIATE REFORMED SYNOD OF THE WEST, 



November 6th, 1850, 

) 



BY 


JOHN T. PRESSLY, D. D. 



Published by Request of the Students. 



PITTSBURGH: 

PRINTED BT SHRYOCK & IIACRE, CORNER OF WOOD AND THIRD STREETS. 

1850. 









1 " ' , -• 

















. < . 

........... . . A. - v . \ 7 J..v-. 










t 

>/. >•» 

*> j > 

’ nre- 

• .»»'* • ** ‘ 








. S'. . . / r > , 














































ADDRESS. 


MY DEAR YOUNG FRIENDS: 

For several successive ages there has existed in the 
world an extensive ecclesiastical organization, of a pecu¬ 
liar character, which has exerted a wide-spread influence 
among the nations of the earth. This organization claims 
to be the true church of Christ; denies to all other eccle¬ 
siastical associations the right to be regarded as any part 
of the Christian Church; and excludes from the hope of 
salvation all who are without its pale. One of the main 
pillars on which this system of such lofty pretensions rests, 
is the assumption that the Apostle Peter was by our Lord 
invested with peculiar authority, and was constituted the 
Prince of the Apostles, and the Head of the Church on 
earth. Intimately connected with this position, and equally 
essential to the support of this system, is the assumption 
that this Apostle was constituted the Bishop of the Church 
of Rome. And from these premises the conclusion is 
drawn, that the existing Bishop of Rome is the successor 
of the Prince of the Apostles; and consequently that he 
inherits the peculiar prerogatives of the great Apostle, and 
is the Vicar of Christ on earth. 

It is proposed, on the present occasion, to inquire into 
the nature of the foundation on which Romanism has erec¬ 
ted her towering superstructure. It is reasonable to sup¬ 
pose that principles of fundamental importance in a system 
professedly Christian must be clearly taught in the Oracles 
of Truth. 


[ 4 ] 

I. Oar first inquiry, then, is, Do the Scriptures furnish 
satisfactory evidence , that the Apostle Peter was invested with 
any peculiar authority or dignity among the Apostles'! 

1. In the first place I remark, that in the call to the office 
of the Apostleship, and in the commission which was given 
to the twelve disciples, there is no intimation of any distinc¬ 
tion among them in point of authority. In the early part of 
his ministry, our Lord selected from among his followers 
twelve whom he named Apostles. These twelve he or¬ 
dained that they should be with him, and that he might 
send them forth to preach the gospel, and have power to 
heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. While he was with 
them, our Lord sent out the Twelve by two and two, and 
gave them power over unclean spirits. And they went 
out and preached that men should repent. And they cast 
out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were 
sick, and healed them.—Mark vi. 7. In this first appoint¬ 
ment which was given to the Twelve, there is not the 
slightest intimation of any peculiar authority being confer¬ 
red on any one of them. Peter is called and ordained by 
his Lord and Master, just in the same manner as the other 
Apostles; he is sent forth accompanied by a companion, in 
the same way as the rest of his brethren; and between him 
and them, there is no distinction made in the bestowment 
of miraculous gifts. 

And after the resurrection, when having finished the 
work of redemption, our Lord was about to ascend to the 
right hand of the Majesty on high, he invested his Apostles 
with full authority as his ambassadors to go forth and 
preach the gospel to the nations, no distinction whatever is 
made among them. To them all alike he says, “As mv 
father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he 
had said this, he breathed on them and said unto them, 
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, 
they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ve re¬ 
tain, they are retained.”—John xx. 21. And having assert- 


I 5 J 

ed his claim to universal dominion, saying, “All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth;” he says to them all 
“Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto 
the end of the world.”—-Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

Had it been the design of the Head of the Church to 
assign to one of his Apostles a station of eminence above 
the rest, this was surely the appropriate time to make 
known his mind. But here we see, that when investing 
fully with the apostolic dignity, those whom he had selected 
for that purpose, our Lord gives to them all the same com¬ 
mission in the same words; clothes them alike with the 
same authority; assigns to them the same employment, and 
gives to them all the same precious promise for their en¬ 
couragement in the work to which they were called. 

But before they should enter upon the work assigned to 
them, it was necessary that they should be endowed with 
peculiar qualifications. Accordingly the divine direction 
is, “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued 
with power from on high.” In obedience to the divine 
command, “They continued with one accord, in prayer 
and supplication,” until the day of Pentecost, when the 
interesting promise was fulfilled. “And when the day of 
Pentecost was fully come, they were all wfith one accord 
in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the 
house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the 
Spirit gave them utterance.” Had it been the purpose of 
Heaven that Peter should occupy a peculiar station of 
eminence and dignity among his brethren, peculiar endow¬ 
ments would have been necessary to qualify him for the 


[ 6 ] 

trust. But there is no indication of any distinction in the 
qualifications bestowed upon the Apostles. The Holy 
Spirit descended upon each of them in the same manner; 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to 
speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 
—Acts, ii, 1. 

Since, then, when our Lord clothed his Apostles with 
authority as his ambassadors, and sent them forth to preach 
the Gospel and to administer the ordinances of Christianity, 
he made no distinction among them, but gave them all the 
same commission; and since they were all alike endowed 
with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to qualify them for the 
work to which they were called, the conclusion is irresistible 
that in point of authority there is among the Apostles 
perfect equality. 

To this conclusion, however, it is objected, that there 
are certain passages of Scripture which seem to indicate 
that peculiar dignity and authority were conferred upon 
the Apostle Peter. Let us, then, examine some of those 
declarations of the word of God, on which the advocates of 
the primacy of Peter, chiefly rely for their support. Among 
these, Mat. xvi, 18, may be regarded as occupying the most 
prominent place. On the occasion here referred to, our 
Lord proposed to his disciples the question, “Whom say 
ye that I am V’ Peter replies on behalf of them all, “Thou 
art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” After express¬ 
ing his commendation of this profession of faith, our Lord 
says to the Apostle, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; 
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it.” On the occasion of our 
Lord’s first interview with this Apostle, he gave him a 
name descriptive of the character for which he should 
afterwards be distinguished: “Thou art Simon, the son of 
Jona; thoushalt be called Cephas, which is by interpreta¬ 
tion, a stone.”—John i, 42. The name Cephas in the 
Syriac language and Petros in the Greek, are of the same 


[ 7 ] 

import, and signify a stone. By this name it was indicated 
that when fully qualified for the office to which he was 
called, Peter should be distinguished for his firmness, his 
boldness and intrepidity in the service of his Master. 

On the occasion to which the words in question refer, 
when Peter witnessed a good confession, our Lord advert¬ 
ing to the characteristic name which he had given him, 
says, Thou art Peter. In the noble confession of a funda¬ 
mental truth of Christianty, which you have made, you 
have given evidence that the name has not been misap¬ 
plied. Thou art Peter, a rock. And in connection with 
Peter’s avowal of a great truth which lies at the very foun¬ 
dation of the church, our Lord proceeds to describe the 
foundation and perpetuity of his church: ‘‘On this rock will 
I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it.” 

The question here arises, What is the rock on which 
our Lord declares, “I will build my church ]” The Ro¬ 
manist replies, It is Peter. But in opposition to this 
hypothesis, I remark, that whatever may be the precise 
import of our Lord’s declaration, it is certain that he does 
not say that Peter is the rock on which he will build his 
church. Had it been the design of our Lord to indicate 
that the person of Peter was the rock on which the church 
should be founded, the obvious manner of expression would 
have been, Thou art Peter, a rock; and on thee will I 
build my church. But an important distinction is made 
between Peter and the rock on which the church should 
rest. In the original language the distinction is at once 
apparent. Thou art Petros , and on this petra, will I build 
my church. I repeat it, then, that our Lord does not declare 
his purpose to build his church upon the person of Peter, 
but on something different from him. And therefore the 
claim of superiority in behalf of the Apostle Peter, founded 
upon this passage of Scripture, has its origin in a miscon¬ 
ception of our Lord’s meaning. 


t 8 ] 

But I reply still further, that the interpretation which 
represents Peter as the rock on which the church is built, 
makes this portion of Scripture conflict with what is plainly 
taught in other parts of the word of God. The Scrip¬ 
tures teach in the most clear and unequivocal manner, that 
Jesus Christ is the only foundation of the church, and that 
upon this rock, and not upon any imperfect creature, is 
the church built. “Thussaith the Lord God, Behold I lay 
in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious 
cornerstone, a sure foundation.”—Isa. xxviii, 16. And an 
Apostle declares, “other foundation can no man lay than 
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”—1 Cor. iii. 11. Jesus 
Christ then, is the living stone which God hath laid in Zion, 
he is the only foundation of the church; and the Apostle Pe¬ 
ter and all true believers are lively stones built up a spir¬ 
itual house, which rests upon him as the foundation. That 
interpretation, therefore, which would make Peter the rock 
on which the church is founded, is manifested to be erro¬ 
neous, because it conflicts with what the Scriptures else¬ 
where plainly teach, and arrogates to a creature, the honor 
which belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Among those who unite in rejecting that interpretation 
of this text, which makes Peter the rock on which the 
church is built, there is some diversity of opinion, in rela¬ 
tion to its precise import. All that is necessary to my 
present purpose, is to show, that it is a forced and erro¬ 
neous construction which would make it support the doc¬ 
trine that Peter is the foundation on which our Lord de¬ 
clares his purpose to build his church. Perhaps the most 
simple interpretation is that which represents the great 
truth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, which 
Peter in the name of the Apostles confessed, as the rock 
which supports his church, and is essential to its existence. 
The idea then would be, that Jesus Christ, in his true char¬ 
acter, as the Son of the living God, is the rock on which 


[ 9 ) 

the church is founded, and on which she shall stand securely 
amidst the opposition of earth and hell. 

In connection with the declaration we have been con¬ 
sidering, our Lord says to Peter “I will give unto thee, the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever 
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And 
these words have been adduced to prove that some peculiar 
authority was conferred on Peter. The key, being the 
instrument by means of which the door is opened or shut, 
so that persons are either admitted into the house, or 
excluded from it, is an appropriate emblem of government. 
See Isa. xxii. 22; Rev. iii. 7. And the kingdom of heaven 
being the Christian Church, to give one the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven, is to invest him with authority in the 
Church of Christ, in the exercise of which, he admits men 
to the enjoyment of Christian fellowship or excludes them 
from it, according to the laws which the King of Zion has 
established. And that the term key is here employed as 
the emblem of government, seems to be made evident, by 
the additional clause relative to binding and loosing. 
“Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in 
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven.” But that our Lord could not have 
designed by these words to confer any peculiar authority 
upon Peter, appears from the fact, that the same language 
is on another occasion addressed in general to all the 
Apostles.—Mat. xviii. 18. And on a subsequent occasion 
language differing in terms, but of the same general import 
is addressed to them all. Jesus breathed on them, and 
saith unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whoseso¬ 
ever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose¬ 
soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”—John xx. 23. 
The conclusion then to which we are conducted is, that 
on this occasion our Lord addressed himself personally to 
Peter, because he had answered in the name of his brethren 
2 


a question which was proposed to them all; and therefore, 
the language in question, confers no authority on Peter 
which was not common to all the Apostles. 

2. I remark in the next place, that the history of the 
Apostolic church furnishes no evidence either that Peter 
claimed the right to exercise any peculiar authority over 
his brethren, or that the right to exercise any such authority 
was by them conceded to him. During the period of the 
ministry of the Apostles, there were various occasions on 
which, had any one of them possessed any peculiar author¬ 
ity, an opportunity for its exercise was furnished. For exam¬ 
ple, as the number of the disciples increased, it was found to 
be inconvenient for the Apostles to attend to the wants of the 
poor; and consequently that they might not be neglected, 
it became necessary to appoint a class of officers for this 
special purpose. And had Peter been clothed with 
supreme authority among the Apostles, here undoubtedly 
was presented a fit occasion for its exercise. But is there 
any indication of the exercise of any peculiar authority by 
this Apostle on this occasion, when a new regulation was 
to be introduced for the government of the church? 
Nothing like it! The twelve called the multitude of the 
disciples unto them, and proposed the matter to them, and 
directed them to select seven men of honest report, whom, 
say they, “we may appoint over this business.” And when 
the multitude had made a selection of such persons as 
were supposed to be qualified for the office, they presented 
them not to Peter, to receive his authoritative sanction, but 
they set them before the Apostles; and when they had 
prayed, they laid their hands on them. 

In the progress of Christianity, it came to pass that 
Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached 
Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave 
heed to those things which Philip spake, hearing and see¬ 
ing the miracles which he did. And when intelligence of 
the success of the gospel in Samaria reached the Apostles 


[ 11 ] 

which were at Jerusalem, and it was deemed necessary to 
send additional laborers to further the work which had 
been so auspiciously commenced, had there been a Prince 
among the Apostles, who was invested with supreme 
authority over the rest, it surely would have been his 
province to designate the men who should perform this 
service. But do we find Peter on this occasion exercising 
any such prerogative? So far from it, Peter himself is 
one of those who are selected and sent by the brethren, on 
this important mission. “When the Apostles which were 
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of 
God, they sent unto them Peter and John.” In the face 
of such a fact, how preposterous to pretend that this 
Apostle was invested with any peculiar authority over his 
brethren. 

Again; on a subsequent occasion, in the history of 
Christianity, the peace of the church in Antioch was 
disturbed by an effort to incorporate the peculiarities of 
Judaism with Christianity. Certain men who came down 
from Judea, taught the brethren and said, “Except ye be 
circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be 
saved.” In this instance a serious doctrinal error was 
propagated. And if there had been among the Apostles 
one who was the Head of the Church, on whom it devolved 
in a peculiar manner to maintain the integrity and purity 
of the church, this certainly was an occasion which called 
for the exercise of his authority. But to what tribunal 
was this question involving the peace and purity of the 
church referred ? Not to any one individual who was 
regarded as an infallible and authoritative expounder of 
the faith; not to Peter, but to the Apostles and Elders. 
The sacred historian informs us, that Paul and Barnabas 
went up from Antioch to Jerusalem to the Apostles and 
Elders about this question. 

And when the assembly convened to deliberate in 
relation to this matter, and to decide a question in which 


[ 12 ] 

the vital interests of Christianity were involved, did Peter 
claim any pre-eminence over his brethren ? Or was there 
any peculiar deference to his authority? So far from it, 
he appears on terms of perfect equality with them; and 
without making pretensions to superiority in any respect, 
takespart in the deliberations which led to a decision of the 
question at issue. In his turn Peter rose up and submitted 
his views to the consideration of the assembly. He calls 
the attention of the brtehren to some things which had 
occurred under his own observation while engaged in the 
exercise of his ministry; and from facts he reasons in 
relation to the indications of the will of God, as to the 
course which ought to be pursued. And after he arid 
others had expressed their views, the Apostle James pro¬ 
ceeded to review the facts which had been stated, and the 
arguments which had been offered; and in conclusion, 
submitied a motion for the disposal of the subject, which was 
unanimously adopted. 

Here, then, in an assembly of the Christian ministry, on 
an occasion when a question of vital importance to the 
interests of Christianity was to be decided, we find Peter 
meeting with ,his brethren on terms of perfect equality, 
taking part with them in their deliberations, laying claim to 
no peculiar prerogatives, exercising no peculiar authority. 
And the whole proceedings of this deliberative assembly 
are utterly irreconcileable with the supposition that the 
Apostle Peter was clothed with any peculiar authority 
over the church. 

II. But let us proceed in the next place to inquire into 
the nature of the foundation on which the other pillar of 
the Roman Hierarchy rests. Not only does Romanism 
claim for the Apostle Peter peculiar prerogatives, but 
likewise maintains that it is the distinguished honor of the 
Church of Rome, to have had the Prince of the Apostles 
as her first Bishop. And from this it is inferred, that the 
existing Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, and 


[ 18 ] 

inherits from him all the peculiar prerogatives for which he 
was distinguished. In opposition to all such lofty preten¬ 
sions, it may be said, that not only are the Scriptures 
perfectly silent on this subject, but they give us no inform¬ 
ation which would enable us to determine that the Apostle 
was ever at any time during his life in the city of Rome. 
And it surely argues a great degree of boldness in any 
system which lays claim to the character of Christian, to 
maintain a principle essential to its very existence, to 
which the word of God affords no support. 

The first time the sacred history introduces this venerable 
Apostle to our notice, we find him in the city of Jerusalem 
taking part in the deliberations of an assembly of the 
Christian ministry. After the adjournment of this assem¬ 
bly, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, where they 
had been previously employed in preaching the gospel. 
From an incident introduced in the Epistle to the Gala¬ 
tians, it appears that Peter likewise, shortly after this time, 
visited Antioch: “When Peter was come to Antioch,” says 
the Apostle Paul, “I withstood him to the face, for he was 
to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, 
he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he 
withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were 
of the circumcision.”—Gal. ii. 11. 

At what particular time this interview took place be¬ 
tween the two Apostles; or what was the occasion of Pe¬ 
ter’s visit to Antioch at this time ; or how long he remained 
there; we have not the means to determine. All that ap¬ 
pears certainly is, that this visit to Antioch was some time 
subsequent to the meeting of the council at Jerusalem. 
On the subject of the travels and labors of the Apostle 
from this time to the end of his life, the sacred history 
gives us no information. It may be regarded, however, as 
a probable opinion, that he may have been employed in 
preaching the gospel in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, 
and Bithynia, to the strangers dispersed throughout which 
countries his two Epistles are addressed.—1 Pet. i. 1. 


I 14 J 

In the first Epistle, the salutation of the church at Bab¬ 
ylon is sent to the brethren to whom it is addressed: “The 
church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salu- 
teth you.”—1 Pet. v. 13. From this it appears, that at the 
time the Epistle was written, the Apostle was at Babylon. 
And on this circumstance the advocates of the Roman 
Hierarchy have endeavored to found an argument in sup¬ 
port of the hypothesis, that the Apostle Peter was Bishop 
of Rome. They contend that the Apostle here applies to 
Rome the mystical name of Babylon, as descriptive of the 
wickedness and idolatry of that city. It may be a suffi¬ 
cient reply to this argument to say, that it is founded upon 
a pure assumption, which cannot claim even probability in 
its favor. The language in question occurs in a plain and 
familiar Epistle, addressed to Christian brethren; and it is 
the salutation of a Christian church addressed to their 
brethren. And there is no conceivable reason why, on 
such an occasion, this Christian church should assume any 
other than her proper name. 

That the Apostle Peter should be called to evidence his 
unyielding attachment to the cause of Christ, by laying 
down his life, had been distinctly foretold. In an interview 
with the Apostles, just before his ascension into heaven, our 
Lord addressed to Peter these memorable words: “When 
thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whith¬ 
er thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old thou shalt 
stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and 
carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, 
signifying by what death he should glorify God.”—John 
xxi. 18. But in relation to the place where this event oc¬ 
curred, the Scriptures are perfectly silent. 

But not only is the sacred history silent on the subject of 
Peters labors in Rome; in so far as any light is reflected 
on this subject, it is rendered doubtful whether he ever 
honored that city with his presence. Among the canoni¬ 
cal Epistles, we have one addressed by the Apostle Paul 


[ 15 ] 

to the church in Rome. At the time this Epistle was writ¬ 
ten, Paul had never visited the church in this city; but such 
was the character of the church, that he says, “your faith 
is spoken of throughout the whole world,” and he longed 
to see the brethren there, that he might impart unto them 
some spiritual gift, to the end they might be established. 
Had this church been founded by the labors of the Apos¬ 
tle of the circumcision, it is not to be supposed that Paul 
would have passed over, without notice, a circumstance of 
such interest. And yet we do not find in the whole Epis¬ 
tle, the remotest allusion to the person by whose ministry 
this famous church was established. 

But still further; in the conclusion of this Epistle, the 
Apostle sends affectionate Christian salutation to various 
members of this Church, some of whom at least, it would 
seem, were private individuals. But Peter’s name is not 
found in the catalogue of those dear brethren, to whom the 
Apostle sends the expression of hisChristian regard: nor is 
there the most distant allusion to him. And can it be believed 
that the church in Rome was at this time under the pasto¬ 
ral care of Peter; and yet, that while affectionate saluta¬ 
tion is addressed to particular members of his flock by 
name, the noble minded Paul would pass unnoticed his 
beloved brother, their pastor? The supposition is utterly 
destitute of all credibility. And it may be regarded as a 
matter beyond all reasonable doubt, that at the date of this 
Epistle, Peter could not have been in Rome; much less 
could he have been the Bishop of that distinguished church. 

Still further; in the Acts of the Apostles, we have a par¬ 
ticular account of the labors and travels of the Apostle 
Paul; of his apprehension by the Jews; of his appeal to 
Cmsar, and of his journey to Rome as a prisoner. When 
the brethren in Rome heard of the approach of the Apos¬ 
tle, we are informed that they came as far as Appii Forum 
and the Three Taverns to meet him. But among those 
who came to express their sympathy for a brother in bonds, 


[ 16 ] 

there is no mention of the name of Peter. And though 
Paul remained a prisoner in Rome, and dwelt two whole 
years in his own hired house, and received all that came in 
unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching 
those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, there is 
no intimation, during all this period, of an interview be¬ 
tween him and his beloved brother Peter. 

But this is not all. During these two years’ imprison¬ 
ment in Rome, various Epistles were written by the Apos¬ 
tle to individuals and to churches. Of these we may no¬ 
tice the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the 
Colossians, and to Philemon. The period of the Apostle’s 
imprisonment in Rome is supposed to extend from the year 
of our Lord 61 to 63. But in none of these Epistles writ¬ 
ten from Rome, does the Apostle make any mention of 
Peter, nor in any way refer to his connection with that 
church. In the Epistle addressed to the Philippians, the 
saints generally, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household, 
unite with the Apostle in sending Christian salutation; in 
the Epistle to the Colossians, various individuals by name 
unite with him, in the expression of their Christian regard; 
and the same is true in relation to the Epistle to Philemon 
But in none of these Epistles do we find the name of Peter 
among those who unite with Paul in the expression of 
brotherly love to the saints. And the only credible ac¬ 
count which can be given of Paul’s silence in relation to 
Peter in these Epistles written from Rome is, that Peter 
did not reside there at that time, and consequently could 
not be the pastor of the church in that city. According to 
the most probable calculations of chronologers, the martyr¬ 
dom of Peter took place about the year of our Lord 64. 
And consequently, if it was in Rome that the Apostle glo¬ 
rified God by suffering the death of a martyr, he must have 
come to the city only a short time previous to his death. 

But, it is not the only inconvenience with which this fun¬ 
damental principle of Romanism is burdened, that it is en- 


[ 17 ] 

tirely destitute of the support of Scripture. Not only are 
the Scriptures perfectly silent in relation to Peter’s residence 
in Rome, as well as with regard to a pastoral charge in 
that city; but it is, moreover, inconsistent with the nature of 
the Apostolic office, to suppose that his charge was con¬ 
fined to a particular church. The Apostles were an 
extraordinary class of officers, whose ministry was employed 
in laying the foundations of the Christian Church. They 
were called immediately by our Lord, and were endowed 
with miraculous gifts to qualify them for the peculiar service 
which they were appointed to perform. Their commission 
was general, not confined to any particular city or country. 
Their field of labor was the world. “Go ye into all the 
world and preach the gospel to every creature.” And 
from the inspired history of their labors, it appears that in 
the execution of their commission they went from city to 
city and from country to country; preaching the gospel, 
founding and organizing churches. Having preached the 
gospel with success in a particular place, and having 
collected a congregation of professing Christians, they 
appointed officers to take charge of them, while they 
passed on to other fields of labor. And accordingly in 
the history of the Apostle Paul’s labors, who, accompanied 
by Barnabas, preached the gospel in Derbe, Lystra, Iconi- 
um and Antioch, it is said, “And when they had ordained 
them Elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting 
they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.” 
—Acts xiv. 23. The Apostles were not, therefore, pastors, 
of particular churches. Their peculiar work was to plant 
and organize churches, wherever their labors in preaching 
the gospel were successful; and then to commit these 
churches to the care of pastors appointed over them. 
And Peter, instead of being the Bishop of Rome, enjoyed 
a more distinguished title, the apostle of the circumcision, 
as Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

It is not my design, upon the present occasion, to enter 
upon the investigation of the question relative to Peter’s 


[ 18 ] 

episcopacy, in the light of history and tradition. Our faith 
in matters of religion, does not rely upon the uncertain 
testimony of uninspired history, but upon the word of God. 
It is, therefore, enough for us to know, that in so far as the 
authority of Scripture is concerned, not only have we no 
evidence that this Apostle was Bishop of Rome; but there 
is nothing to show that he ever preached the gospel in that 
famous city. 

And with regard to the testimony of history, it may be 
sufficient to remark, that so indistinct is the light which it 
reflects upon the subject, that eminently learned men, after 
a patient and laborious investigation, have come to the 
conclusion, that it is a matter involved in much uncertainty, 
whether the Apostle Peter was ever within the limits of 
the city of Rome. It may, however, be regarded as upon 
the whole probable, from the testimony of some ancient 
writers and prevalent tradition, that in his old age and 
near the close of his life, the Apostle came to the city and 
there suffered martyrdom in the cause of his Lord and 
Master. 

In conclusion, then, since as we have seen, the principle, 
which maintains that our Lord conferred upon the Apostle 
Peter peculiar prerogatives, constituting him the visible 
head of the church, is utterly unsupported by the word of 
God; and since the allegation that this Apostle was the first 
Bishop of Rome can lay claim to no Scriptural authority, 
we are brought to the conclusion, that the superstructure 
which Romanism has erected rests upon a foundation of 
sand. And the claim which the existing Bishop of Rome 
sets up to be regarded as the successor of the Prince of the 
Apostles, and the inheritor of his peculiar prerogatives, is 
worthy of him who in the height of his presumption 
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, 
or that is worshipped; so that as God he sitteth in the 
temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Whom 
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and 
shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. 


A BRIEF HISTORY OF ODR SEMINARY. 


The Theological Institution, to the students of which, the above 
Address was delivered, was established in the year 1825. The Rev. 
Joseph Kerr, D. D. at that time pastor of the St. Clair congregation 
was chosen Professor. After having discharged the duties of his office 
for four years, this excellent man was removed by death. After the 
death of Dr. Kerr, such of the students as found it convenient to repair 
to his residence, pursued their theological studies under the care of 
Rev. Mungo Dick, for the two following years. At the meeting of 
Synod, in Pittsburgh, 19th October, 1831, the present Senior Professor 
was chosen. 

In the year 1843, Synod established three Professorships in the 
Institution: 

A Professorship of Theology—Didactic, Polemic, and Pastoral; 

A Professorship of Biblical Literature and Criticism; 

A Professorship of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government. 

At the same time, the Rev. James L. Dinwiddie, D. D. was appointed 
Professor of Biblical Literature and Criticism; and the Professorship 
of Theology was assigned to the Senior Professor. It being at that 
time, inconvenient for Synod, to fill the chair of Ecclesiastical History 
and Church Government, the duties connected with that department 
were dischargad by the Senior Professor. 

About the middle of the third Session after Dr. Dinwiddie was 
elected, it pleased God in his mysterious providence, to lay his afflicting 
hand upon him, so that he was disqualified for rendering any further 
service to the Church. By this dispensation, the Senior Professor, was 
once more left alone in the charge of the Seminary; and on him devolved 
the duties connected with the three Professorships in the Institution. 
In this situation, he remained until the meeting of Synod in 1847; at 
which time the Rev. Alexander D. Clarke, President of Franklin 
College, in New Athens, Ohio, was elected Professor of Ecclesiastical 
History and Church Government. Professor Clarke entered upon 
the discharge of the duties of his Professorship, at the commencement 
of the Session in 1848. 



As yet the Seminary possesses no buildings of its own. Through 
the liberality of the congregation forming the pastoral charge of the 
senior Professor, a spacious and convenient Lecture Room, and a room 
for the accommodation of the Library, are furnished free of charge, in 
the basement story of their Church. The Library, though not large, 
numbering about 1500 volumes, is yet select and valuable. And in 
consequence of various bequests left by friends of the Institution, the 
means are now in possession of Synod, which will enable us to enlarge 
the Library to an extent which will meet all necessary demands. 

The term of study in the Seminary at present is four years; there 
being one session of five months in each year, commencing on the first 
Monday in November. During the whole course, the Bible is our 
text-book. The grand design of every exercise in the Seminary is to 
lead the student to a correct understanding of the lively Oracles, and 
to enable him to acquire the faculty of unfolding the truths of the Bible 
plainly and intelligibly to others. It is not the object of the Instruc¬ 
tors to communicate a large amount of knowledge, but to aid the 
student in the investigation of truth for himself; that thus knowledge 
may be acquired as the fruit of his own labor. 

The following outline of the course of study and the laws for the 
government of the Institution, adopted by the Synod, will give a gen¬ 
eral view of the manner in which the course of instruction is conducted 
in the Seminary: 


COURSE OF STUDY. 

1. The reading and critical investigation of the Sacred Scriptures, 
in the Hebrew and Greek languages, shall occupy a prominent place 
in the whole course. Every thing included under the head of Biblical 
Antiquities, Natural History, Chronology and Sacred Geography, shall 
here be introduced. The great design of this branch of theological 
study shall be to qualify the Student for the correct and perspicuous 
interpretation of the Sacred Text. 

2. The study of the doctrines of the Bible in systematic order. In 
this department the attention of the Student shall be occupied with 
every thing included under the heads of Didactic and Polemic The¬ 
ology. Here the first subject of inquiry shall be, what are the doc¬ 
trines of the Holy Scriptures as exhibited in our ecclesiastical stan¬ 
dards, and what their connection and dependence? The great object 
in this branch of study shall be, to qualify the Student for holding forth 
the Faithful Word, and to enable him by sound doctrine both to exhort 
and to convince the gainsayers. 

3. The careful examination of the history of the Church of Christ 
from its first establishment till the present time. Here the attention of 
the Student shall be directed to the origin and progress of the Church; 


[ 21 ] 

the ordinances of religious worship; and the corruptions, whether of 
doctrine, worship, or government, which have been at different times 
introduced into the Church. The principal design in this department 
shall be to enable the Student to know how he ought to behave himself 
in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar 
and Ground of the truth. 

LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INSTITUTION. 

1. Particular attention shall be paid to the cultivation of practical 
godliness. For this purpose not only shall the Student attend to the 
devutional exercises of the closet and of the family with whom he may 
reside, but shall likewise attend punctually the meetings of his fellow- 
students for social worship, and also some place of public worship on 
the Lord’s day. 

2. Regular and punctual attendance shall be given to all the exer¬ 
cises for improvement connected with the Seminary; nor shall any Stu¬ 
dent be absent on any occasion, without being able to assign to his 
instructor a satisfactory reason. 

3. No Student shall, while connected with the Seminary, defend, or 
endeavor to propagate any doctrine inconsistent with the received 
standards of the Associate Reformed Church. 


\ 


4 


|$rmnt /arnlfq* 

JOHN T. PRESSLY, D. D. 

Professor of Theology, Didactic, Polemic and Pastoral. 

REV. A. D. CLARKE, 

Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government. 

[The Professorship of Biblical Literature and Criticism, as yet re¬ 
mains vacant, and the duties of this department, are at present divided 
between the two existing Professors.] 


CATALOGUE OF STUDENTS, 

FOR THE SESSION OF 1850 AND 1851. 


FIRST YEAR. 


NAMES. 

RESIDENCE. 

GRADUATED. 


D. D. Christy, 

Butler, Pa. 

Madison College. 

R. N. Dick, 

Brush Valley, Pa. 

Jefferson “ 

1850 

P. H. Drennen, 

Elizabeth, “ 

Washington “ 

1850 

James GivexN, 

Allegheny City, “ 

Franklin “ 

1850 

J AS. M. GORSUCH, 

Hookstown, “ 

Jefferson “ 

1850 

John Jameson, 

Middletown, “ 

Franklin “ 

1850 

Thomas Love, 

Shepherd stown, 0. 

(( u 


Robert M’ Watty, 

Lawrence Co. Pa. 

<< u 

1850 

C. K. Potter, 

Fayette “ “ 

Washington “ 

1850 

Sam’l F. Thompson, 

Tyro, Ohio, 

Franklin “ 

1850 

Samuel F. Vanata, 

West Alexander , Pa. 

ii << 

1849 

W. W. Waddle, 

Wheeling, Va. 

Muskingum “ 

1850 

R. H. Young, 

Allegheny City, Pa. 

Duquesne ** 



First Year, - - - - 

SECOND YEAR. 

13 

George C. Arnold, 

Frankfort, Pa. 

Jefferson “ 

1849 

John B. Clarke, 

Washington, O. 

Franklin “ 

1847 

J. R. M’Callister, 

York County, Pa. 

<( tt 

1848 

Thos. H. M’Ewen, 

West Middletown, Pa. 

« « 


James C. M’Ivnight, 

Meadville, Pa. 

Allegheny “ 

1850 

S. M. Hutchison, 

Washington Co. Pa. 

Muskingum “ 

1848 

A. G. Wallace, 

Herriottsville, “ 

Jefferson “ 

1847 


Second 

THIRD YEAR. 

Year, - - - - 

7 

Mathew Clarke, 

Indiana, Pa. 

Jefferson “ 

1848 

T. M. Cunningham, 

New Concord , O. 

Muskingum “ 

1848 

Samuel Dougan, 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Duquesne “ 

1848 

Thomas Drennen, 

St. Clairsville, 0. 

Franklin “ 

1848 

James C. Forsythe, 

Finleyville, Pa. 

Washington “ 

184S 

Hugh H. Hervey, 

Tarentum, “ 

West. Univ. 

1848 

Elijah M’Caugiiey, 

Fredericksburg, 0. 

Franklin College. 

H. C. M’Farland, 

Shirland, Pa. 

Jefferson “ 

1848 

George Ormond, 

Rural Valley, Pa. 

Union “ 

1847 


Third Year, - - - - 

9 




NAMES. 


J 


/ 


[ 24 ] 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 021 432 877 A 


FOURTH YEAR. 

RESIDENCE. GRADUATED. 


James Borrows, 
John L. Craig, 
Wm. R. Erskine, 
Alex. G. Fergus, 
Wm. M’Millan, 
J. R. Walker, 


New Concord, O. 
Allegheny City, Pa. 
Washington Co. “ 
Elizabeth, “ 

Allegheny City, “ 


Muskingum Coll. 1847 
Jefferson “ 1847 
Washington “ 1845 

“ “ 1845 

Duquesne “ 1847 

“ “ “ 1847 

Fourth Year, - - - - 6 


SUMMARY. 


First Year, 13 

Second Year, - - 7 

Third Year, - 9 

Fourth Year, 6 

Total, 35 


The whole number of Students who have entered the Institution 
from its origin in 1825, up to the present time, is two hundred and nine. 




